Yes and no. Southwest does have hubs. I would say that Salt Lake City is a Southwest hub.
"You NEED it to get anywhere that's not a nonpopular destination."
Well, you have a few choices.
Accept that you can't fly everywhere. (Olympia, WA, the capital of the state, has had great trouble keeping air service of ANY kind-they seem to survive).
Accept that it will more inconvenient. Instead of flying to a hub, you will have to fly to a city from which the flight that goes to "nowhere, USA" originates. Many Southwest flights have multiple stops....
Accept that you will have only a few large profitable "hub and spoke airlines" (fewer than now because they aren't profitable....) And they will routinely suffer huge delays....
"By saying that hub and spoke is a flawed concept, you effectively resign smaller cities to death."
No, they just don't get convenient/cheap air service. If I want to go to Olympia, Wa., I have to fly into SeaTac (an hour drive). Always been that way, probably always will be.
Remember the old joke (paraphrased):
How do you become a millionare? Buy an airline when you are a billionare....
"Its a little more complex than a restaurant. We're talking about tens of thousands of passengers, plus rerouting flights to new places, assigning the correct crew members to flights and lots of other accounting type things."
Sure, it's complex. But they have lots of employees. Anyone not working could have been called in (aka, mandatory overtime).
The process would have been slow and inefficient. But at least it shows you are doing something. That you give a damn. And it gets something done. Because, after all, it was the airlines fault in the first place....
"I have little sympathy for people that whine about holiday travel when they didn't plan for things like this."
Okay troll, I'll bite. Maybe he had a limited amount of time off. Maybe that was the most convenient time to fly. Whatever. It doesn't matter.
He shouldn't have to plan for weather, high traffic, and/or computer screwups. That is the airlines JOB. You know, the people who took the money and agreed to get him from point A to point B. Bad weather in the winter? From the massive effects it has on the airlines, you think this is the first time they have ever experienced it.... Running a computer system they KNOW will fail under load?!? Other airlines running out of deicing fluid?!? Excuse me, it IS THE AIRLINES FAULT. When your system is such that one winter storm will screw it up, and it happens repeatedly, and you do nothing to change it, it is broken and your fault.
But they don't care. And that was the grandparents point. Admit it is your fault, refund his money, and let him make other plans.
People accept that there will be problems-lying to them just pisses them off and guarantees that they WON'T believe you if it ever really isn't your fault. Accepting blame tends to build respect.
"By the way -- the "painful" part of converting from an OSS database to Oracle isn't the data conversion, export import, etc. That part is dead easy."
But it can be screwed up. Or take a lot of time. Work for a distribution center for a large publisher in Columbus area. Took them over a week and a half (closer to two) to transition to Oracle (the actually physical part, "planning" took a lot longer). Of course, we couldn't ship anything during that time (you would think they would do it during the slowest time of the year, but noooo)..... If it isn't painful or hard, I don't know why it took them so long (well, the competence of the personnel involved could be questioned, especially since 2nd shift couldn't receive anything after 4pm for a long time afterwards-database related problem apparently-oops).
"But I think the blame ultimately lies with investors, as the board and the execs can only do what they are allowed to by the stockholders."
You have got to be kidding. The board and execs can do pretty much what they want. If they want to drive the company into the ground, it is unlikely the investors can stop them.... Investors (if you mean stockholders) really have very little power. Large institutional stockholders have more power. But as long as the debt payments are made (the lender can hold real power), the board and execs are pretty much untouchable.
"Investors looking for long term value should choose companies that have responsible boards, where the common stockholders' wishes are respected, and where dividends are paid."
Huh? You are contradicting yourself. Didn't you just say the investors were the problem? Now the boards should obey the wishes of the stockholders? I thought you said it was the other way around? (I am using stockholder and investor interchangeably here, as you did in your first sentence).
"Ultimately, these type of changes will only come about when investors demand them and quit investing money in companies that only care about next quarters' profits."
Personally, I hate it when people use the word "investor" or "investment" and "next quarter" or "short term" together. More appropriate would be speculator/speculation and next quarter or short term. Investment implies long term, and frankly under a year isn't. Of course that would offend a lot of people....
When you buy a product you generally have the right to expect it to be suitable for the purpose for which it was intended or "advertised" for lack of a better word. If it isn't suitable because of the EULA, then you have a right to a refund. Whether or not the store likes it.
Not to mention you could make the case that the stores misrepresent software to begin with. How many tell you that you aren't buying a product (that you don't own it) but just have a license to use it?
And if the manufacterer says you can get your money back from the merchant, then you can. If the merchant doesn't like it, then they don't have to carry the software.
"Is the sales rep going to bring up the site for her on another PC and wait for 30 minutes while she wades through the wording?"
Why not? Isn't it his/her job to make the sale....
"Is she going to be expected to go home, get onto the Internet, read the agreement, then come back to the store and buy the software?"
Again, why not? If the store wants to make it hard to take her money....
"Will the sales rep be expected to answer questions about the EULA, because he's sure as hell going to be asked questions by people who don't understand what they're reading?"
Finally, why not? They are selling the product. Why shouldn't they have to answer questions about it. If the EULA is binding then they had better explain it before the sale.
Or maybe they have been benefiting from misrepresenting the product-after all how many stores tell you that when you pay money for software you aren't buying a product, just a license? I suspect very few. If they were forced to tell the truth it might hurt their bottom line and EULA's might change....
"The success of AMD in the 64 bit market has clearly had an effect."
If you mean their instruction set, then maybe. But I believe Intel has sold more chips with the equivalent instruction set than AMD.... (http://www.overclockers.com/tips00698/)
"It is great in theory...until Company A Joe-Jobs Company B."
Well, a reasonable person would conclude (with supporting information) that Company A in your example is actually doing the promotion.
If you want to be more specific (assuming that the police and courts are not reasonable), hold the company that is PAYING for the promotion to be held liable for the actions of the company doing the promotion (in addition to the promoting company).
Sure, it would cost legitimate companies money. But spam already does. But they might like to know about their unethical competitors-and this would bring it to their attention.
Yes, and one of the ways China will switch to a cleaner energy source is by building very large dams for electricity. That certainly won't hurt the environment....
China is a developing nation in the eyes of the treaty only. They seem awfully industrialized to me (one of my definitions of a developed nation).
Sure, they emit less per capita CO2 than we do (or Europe), FOR NOW. But I suspect they would like to like at least as well as Europe does and when that happens, watch out.
They (can't) won't lower their emmissions forever.
And in any case, the data you quoted (from the NRDC) is incorrect. If they can't do simple math correctly, I won't bother with their other results. (Using EPA data, I estimate closer to a ten percent increase from 1996 to 1999). And the US data is much better than China data.
And regarding growth. US emissions increased 13 percent from 1990 to 2002 while GDP increased 42 percent in the same time (US EPA).
Finally, if CO2 is so bad, why allow any country who signed the treaty to increase their emissions? Probably because we don't have a very good idea on how much is too much and you couldn't get wide agreement.... And because we don't have a good idea, the US position is a good one pragmatically (maybe not ethical or moral)-if everyone else will reduce their emissions, not much reason for us to.
Here's another definition: "Practice of using extremely small doses of medicines and herbs to cause the same symptoms the disease causes. Homeopaths (practitioners of homeopathy) acknowledge no diseases, only symptoms."
That is most certainly is NOT scientific.
"A friend recommended she visit a homeopath - he examined her, and told her it was probably due to a yeast allergy. He put her on a yeast-free diet, and after six months, the Rosacia was gone.
You may call it quackery, but as they say - it's tough to argue with results."
And how do you know the yeast free diet cured the Rosacia? Maybe it wasn't Rosacia (misdiagnosis) or it went away on its own. Heck, she might not even be allergic to yeast....
Re:My favorite [read: most annoying] bad science:
on
Bad Science Awards
·
· Score: 1
"Remember: if a state is conducting it, it's not terrorism. It's simply tyranny (or a 'reign of terror')."
I don't know if that is precisely true (aka, "state sponsored terrorism") but you do get at the root of the issue. If the terrorists had any power, they wouldn't need to resort to terrorism. Groups that are weak may resort to terrorism to further their ends. Powerful countries don't need to.....
"Well, as creationists will point out, evolution can't be tested on a multi-million year time-scale either, and multi-million-year predictions are hard to check."
And they would be wrong. Fossil evidence is one of the lines of evidence for evolution. And that is billions of years old for single celled organisms, and over 500 million for more "complex" critters. Granted, it may not be EASY to do but one can make a prediction and look for evidence to support or deny the hypothesis.
Some ATMs have been taking your picture. Not all of them. You can find them without video cameras.
Heck, even some of them with a provision for cameras don't have them or they aren't operating. This comes from someone who has serviced them in the past. Remember, ATMs or the kiosk may have the capability, but it relies on bank personnel for it to work.....
"The reason sentences are so high on computer crimes is because of the potential severity of the crime and the widespread damages that can be caused...."
That (potential) still isn't a good reason. How about it be based on what actually happened? It is absurd to give a sentence for an attempted financial crime that is greater than many violent crimes. If it is a similar sentence to that of a non-violent robbery attempt, then okay.
Failure is "rewarded" for other crimes. For instance, attempted murder has a lesser sentence than murder.
This sentence is being used as a deterrent. It won't work. I doubt criminals are going to think about how long they will go to prison if they get caught-they don't expect to. It is merely a PR event for the prosecution and police-hey look, we are doing something about these dangerous hackers, now go away, we need to get back to our coffee and donuts....
I wonder why? Disliking someone is NOT a valid reason to assign low grades. Thinking their work is crap is a valid reason. That statement pretty much could have enabled the student to have his grade reevaluated by an outside observer. I would have complained to academic affairs. After all, if the professor already dislikes you, that bridge is already burned.
"Er, wait now. There are courses where working to your full capacity should not have any bearing on a pass. Sometimes you're being tested to show you have a mastered a skill, not that you've shown dedication."
Exactly. Pity that you signed in as an AC.
Now if the objectives/requirements weren't explained clearly, they changed, or weren't relevent to the course, then students would have a point. The goal is after all, to learn, not to experience real world work environments....
"When you apply to grad school, they don't know your profs from Adam or your courses from PSYC101. They are going to look at your GPA and your GMAT scores. Period."
And you would be wrong. Oh, maybe getting into med school is different. But for other grad schools you don't need a high GPA to get a full ride (now, a low GPA and a low GRE.....) Hell, one of the best students in my grad program had about a 3 GPA in undergrad courses. Didn't hurt him. They often do know professors at other schools (they did at mine).
"As it stands, I have marked undergrads when I was a TA in grad school and I can tell you that 99% of the students are more interested in a high mark than learning. Looking at the way the world works, who can blame them?"
Did the same, but the percentage wasn't nearly as high as 99%:) Sure, much higher than it should be. Frankly, once I got to grad school, grades were pretty irrelevant. Sure, an "A" would be nice but that generally meant I didn't learn much..... Once you graduate, GPA isn't very useful.
"I would think that the point of something like this is to make sentencing easier if a person is caught for the same crime."
But what is the point? If it was probation for a child molester, wouldn't it be better to say no unsupervised contact with children? That would include internet chat rooms, lurking at parks, etc. How is it actually useful to ban the person from the "internet"? It is akin to banning the ownership of paint for a person who committed vandalism-sure it sounds nice but can cause unintended consequences and is redundant.
"If the story that Oracle had planned to buy PeopleSoft in order to discontinue their products really is a myth, journalists and analysts can't take all the blame."
Why not? Oh, that's right, journalists and analysts can't be bothered to do RESEARCH and INVESTIGATION.
Let's see, if Oracle didn't say it, but someone from PeopleSoft did (and assuming PeopleSoft didn't want to be bought) what would be the reasonable conclusion? Perhaps someone is lying to scuttle the deal? I mean this has never happened before.....
If an "analyst" or "journalist" can't see this and won't investigate or research this, then they aren't an analyst or journalist. These types might as well be replaced by a website that collects PR announcements-they have the same value.
"But it's unsightly, can be costly (suitable areas for wind farms are often near the coast, where land is expensive), and is noisy."
I see. Well, it's a good thing none of these apply to coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear power plants. I mean they all look pretty, don't cost very much, and are very quiet.....NOT And that's not counting energy extraction....
"The other real question is : are you willing to pay the price of neglecting the effects of global warming?"
Well, one reason I am leary of drastic CO2 cuts is this: What exactly is the cost of global warming that we can do something about? I mean, we can calculate the costs of reducing CO2 reasonably well.
But what is the benefit? Saying the world won't warm as much isn't good enough. Saying this might not happen isn't good enough. I mean, some areas will BENEFIT from the warming. Other effects I may not care about (I don't care if someone on the coast loses their home from a hurricane). Give people reasonably good numbers and you would likely have more support. Unless those numbers indicate doing nothing is reasonable....
To put it another way: How much extra CO2 is bad? Is some okay, more worse, a lot really bad? Or is there some point at which all hell breaks loose? We don't know but that information is really important. Without it, saying we should reduce our CO2 emissions is about as meaningful as saying there isn't a problem....
Personally, I don't condemn the administration from not reducing CO2. But not funding research for the basic questions which WILL answer the question IS inexcusable.
Hmm, what's that phrase. Oh, a fool and his money are soon parted....
"I am all for showing sex and violence on TV but not when it is deviously smuggled inside shows billed "family entertainment"."
So, could you give some examples of these shows? Or is it that some shows that you THOUGHT were "family entertainment" had sex and violence in them. Frankly, I find very little sex (not sexual content) and violence in ANY US television, which brings me to point two-maybe your definitions of family entertainment are different than most people....
"The sad fact is that there are hardly any alternatives because almost EVERY show is doing it. There are not many intellectually stimulating shows to watch - unless you want to watch PBS all the time."
Deal with it. If every show is doing it, then by the FTC's definition of indecent, it probably isn't, because of "community standards". If most people want it in the community, how can it be indecent?
Regarding the "intellectually stimulating shows"- there never have been many of them. There never will be. Get over it. TV, for better or worse, is for entertainment, not deep thought. Be glad there is ANY "good" shows. The fact that there are so few illustrates how profitable that niche is....
Slashdot Mirror
"Hub and spoke isn't the problem."
Yes and no. Southwest does have hubs. I would say that Salt Lake City is a Southwest hub.
"You NEED it to get anywhere that's not a nonpopular destination."
Well, you have a few choices.
Accept that you can't fly everywhere. (Olympia, WA, the capital of the state, has had great trouble keeping air service of ANY kind-they seem to survive).
Accept that it will more inconvenient. Instead of flying to a hub, you will have to fly to a city from which the flight that goes to "nowhere, USA" originates. Many Southwest flights have multiple stops....
Accept that you will have only a few large profitable "hub and spoke airlines" (fewer than now because they aren't profitable....) And they will routinely suffer huge delays....
"By saying that hub and spoke is a flawed concept, you effectively resign smaller cities to death."
No, they just don't get convenient/cheap air service. If I want to go to Olympia, Wa., I have to fly into SeaTac (an hour drive). Always been that way, probably always will be.
Remember the old joke (paraphrased):
How do you become a millionare? Buy an airline when you are a billionare....
"Its a little more complex than a restaurant. We're talking about tens of thousands of passengers, plus rerouting flights to new places, assigning the correct crew members to flights and lots of other accounting type things."
Sure, it's complex. But they have lots of employees. Anyone not working could have been called in (aka, mandatory overtime).
The process would have been slow and inefficient. But at least it shows you are doing something. That you give a damn. And it gets something done. Because, after all, it was the airlines fault in the first place....
But, they don't care and are cheap. And it shows.
"I have little sympathy for people that whine about holiday travel when they didn't plan for things like this."
Okay troll, I'll bite. Maybe he had a limited amount of time off. Maybe that was the most convenient time to fly. Whatever. It doesn't matter.
He shouldn't have to plan for weather, high traffic, and/or computer screwups. That is the airlines JOB. You know, the people who took the money and agreed to get him from point A to point B. Bad weather in the winter? From the massive effects it has on the airlines, you think this is the first time they have ever experienced it.... Running a computer system they KNOW will fail under load?!? Other airlines running out of deicing fluid?!? Excuse me, it IS THE AIRLINES FAULT. When your system is such that one winter storm will screw it up, and it happens repeatedly, and you do nothing to change it, it is broken and your fault.
But they don't care. And that was the grandparents point. Admit it is your fault, refund his money, and let him make other plans.
People accept that there will be problems-lying to them just pisses them off and guarantees that they WON'T believe you if it ever really isn't your fault. Accepting blame tends to build respect.
"I can't wait till you hit college and realize you're very very average."
Actually, attending college probably makes one above average (at least in respect to education).
Doesn't say a whole lot about intelligence-though I doubt many people with significantly below average intelligence go to college.
"By the way -- the "painful" part of converting from an OSS database to Oracle isn't the data conversion, export import, etc. That part is dead easy."
But it can be screwed up. Or take a lot of time. Work for a distribution center for a large publisher in Columbus area. Took them over a week and a half (closer to two) to transition to Oracle (the actually physical part, "planning" took a lot longer). Of course, we couldn't ship anything during that time (you would think they would do it during the slowest time of the year, but noooo)..... If it isn't painful or hard, I don't know why it took them so long (well, the competence of the personnel involved could be questioned, especially since 2nd shift couldn't receive anything after 4pm for a long time afterwards-database related problem apparently-oops).
"But I think the blame ultimately lies with investors, as the board and the execs can only do what they are allowed to by the stockholders."
You have got to be kidding. The board and execs can do pretty much what they want. If they want to drive the company into the ground, it is unlikely the investors can stop them.... Investors (if you mean stockholders) really have very little power. Large institutional stockholders have more power. But as long as the debt payments are made (the lender can hold real power), the board and execs are pretty much untouchable.
"Investors looking for long term value should choose companies that have responsible boards, where the common stockholders' wishes are respected, and where dividends are paid."
Huh? You are contradicting yourself. Didn't you just say the investors were the problem? Now the boards should obey the wishes of the stockholders? I thought you said it was the other way around? (I am using stockholder and investor interchangeably here, as you did in your first sentence).
"Ultimately, these type of changes will only come about when investors demand them and quit investing money in companies that only care about next quarters' profits."
Personally, I hate it when people use the word "investor" or "investment" and "next quarter" or "short term" together. More appropriate would be speculator/speculation and next quarter or short term. Investment implies long term, and frankly under a year isn't. Of course that would offend a lot of people....
When you buy a product you generally have the right to expect it to be suitable for the purpose for which it was intended or "advertised" for lack of a better word. If it isn't suitable because of the EULA, then you have a right to a refund. Whether or not the store likes it.
Not to mention you could make the case that the stores misrepresent software to begin with. How many tell you that you aren't buying a product (that you don't own it) but just have a license to use it?
And if the manufacterer says you can get your money back from the merchant, then you can. If the merchant doesn't like it, then they don't have to carry the software.
"Is the sales rep going to bring up the site for her on another PC and wait for 30 minutes while she wades through the wording?"
Why not? Isn't it his/her job to make the sale....
"Is she going to be expected to go home, get onto the Internet, read the agreement, then come back to the store and buy the software?"
Again, why not? If the store wants to make it hard to take her money....
"Will the sales rep be expected to answer questions about the EULA, because he's sure as hell going to be asked questions by people who don't understand what they're reading?"
Finally, why not? They are selling the product. Why shouldn't they have to answer questions about it. If the EULA is binding then they had better explain it before the sale.
Or maybe they have been benefiting from misrepresenting the product-after all how many stores tell you that when you pay money for software you aren't buying a product, just a license? I suspect very few. If they were forced to tell the truth it might hurt their bottom line and EULA's might change....
"The success of AMD in the 64 bit market has clearly had an effect."
If you mean their instruction set, then maybe. But I believe Intel has sold more chips with the equivalent instruction set than AMD.... (http://www.overclockers.com/tips00698/)
"It is great in theory...until Company A Joe-Jobs Company B."
Well, a reasonable person would conclude (with supporting information) that Company A in your example is actually doing the promotion.
If you want to be more specific (assuming that the police and courts are not reasonable), hold the company that is PAYING for the promotion to be held liable for the actions of the company doing the promotion (in addition to the promoting company).
Sure, it would cost legitimate companies money. But spam already does. But they might like to know about their unethical competitors-and this would bring it to their attention.
Yes, and one of the ways China will switch to a cleaner energy source is by building very large dams for electricity. That certainly won't hurt the environment....
China is a developing nation in the eyes of the treaty only. They seem awfully industrialized to me (one of my definitions of a developed nation).
Sure, they emit less per capita CO2 than we do (or Europe), FOR NOW. But I suspect they would like to like at least as well as Europe does and when that happens, watch out.
They (can't) won't lower their emmissions forever.
And in any case, the data you quoted (from the NRDC) is incorrect. If they can't do simple math correctly, I won't bother with their other results. (Using EPA data, I estimate closer to a ten percent increase from 1996 to 1999). And the US data is much better than China data.
And regarding growth. US emissions increased 13 percent from 1990 to 2002 while GDP increased 42 percent in the same time (US EPA).
Finally, if CO2 is so bad, why allow any country who signed the treaty to increase their emissions? Probably because we don't have a very good idea on how much is too much and you couldn't get wide agreement.... And because we don't have a good idea, the US position is a good one pragmatically (maybe not ethical or moral)-if everyone else will reduce their emissions, not much reason for us to.
"Homeopathy is based on observation and testing."
Now that's funny.
Here's another definition:
"Practice of using extremely small doses of medicines and herbs to cause the same symptoms the disease causes. Homeopaths (practitioners of homeopathy) acknowledge no diseases, only symptoms."
That is most certainly is NOT scientific.
"A friend recommended she visit a homeopath - he examined her, and told her it was probably due to a yeast allergy. He put her on a yeast-free diet, and after six months, the Rosacia was gone.
You may call it quackery, but as they say - it's tough to argue with results."
And how do you know the yeast free diet cured the Rosacia? Maybe it wasn't Rosacia (misdiagnosis) or it went away on its own. Heck, she might not even be allergic to yeast....
"Remember: if a state is conducting it, it's not terrorism. It's simply tyranny (or a 'reign of terror')."
I don't know if that is precisely true (aka, "state sponsored terrorism") but you do get at the root of the issue. If the terrorists had any power, they wouldn't need to resort to terrorism. Groups that are weak may resort to terrorism to further their ends. Powerful countries don't need to.....
"Well, as creationists will point out, evolution can't be tested on a multi-million year time-scale either, and multi-million-year predictions are hard to check."
And they would be wrong. Fossil evidence is one of the lines of evidence for evolution. And that is billions of years old for single celled organisms, and over 500 million for more "complex" critters. Granted, it may not be EASY to do but one can make a prediction and look for evidence to support or deny the hypothesis.
"I also believe in Jesus Christ because of what you may call the scientific method: many repeated experiences of the power of God."
Obviously, you don't know as much about the scientific method as you think you do.....
Some ATMs have been taking your picture. Not all of them. You can find them without video cameras.
Heck, even some of them with a provision for cameras don't have them or they aren't operating. This comes from someone who has serviced them in the past. Remember, ATMs or the kiosk may have the capability, but it relies on bank personnel for it to work.....
"The reason sentences are so high on computer crimes is because of the potential severity of the crime and the widespread damages that can be caused...."
That (potential) still isn't a good reason. How about it be based on what actually happened? It is absurd to give a sentence for an attempted financial crime that is greater than many violent crimes. If it is a similar sentence to that of a non-violent robbery attempt, then okay.
Failure is "rewarded" for other crimes. For instance, attempted murder has a lesser sentence than murder.
This sentence is being used as a deterrent. It won't work. I doubt criminals are going to think about how long they will go to prison if they get caught-they don't expect to. It is merely a PR event for the prosecution and police-hey look, we are doing something about these dangerous hackers, now go away, we need to get back to our coffee and donuts....
"So guy-I-knew approached Parnas, and asked why.
"Becuase I don't like you".
And that was the end of it."
I wonder why? Disliking someone is NOT a valid reason to assign low grades. Thinking their work is crap is a valid reason. That statement pretty much could have enabled the student to have his grade reevaluated by an outside observer. I would have complained to academic affairs. After all, if the professor already dislikes you, that bridge is already burned.
If the story is true, of course.
"Er, wait now. There are courses where working to your full capacity should not have any bearing on a pass. Sometimes you're being tested to show you have a mastered a skill, not that you've shown dedication."
Exactly. Pity that you signed in as an AC.
Now if the objectives/requirements weren't explained clearly, they changed, or weren't relevent to the course, then students would have a point. The goal is after all, to learn, not to experience real world work environments....
"When you apply to grad school, they don't know your profs from Adam or your courses from PSYC101. They are going to look at your GPA and your GMAT scores. Period."
:) Sure, much higher than it should be. Frankly, once I got to grad school, grades were pretty irrelevant. Sure, an "A" would be nice but that generally meant I didn't learn much..... Once you graduate, GPA isn't very useful.
And you would be wrong. Oh, maybe getting into med school is different. But for other grad schools you don't need a high GPA to get a full ride (now, a low GPA and a low GRE.....) Hell, one of the best students in my grad program had about a 3 GPA in undergrad courses. Didn't hurt him. They often do know professors at other schools (they did at mine).
"As it stands, I have marked undergrads when I was a TA in grad school and I can tell you that 99% of the students are more interested in a high mark than learning. Looking at the way the world works, who can blame them?"
Did the same, but the percentage wasn't nearly as high as 99%
"I would think that the point of something like this is to make sentencing easier if a person is caught for the same crime."
But what is the point? If it was probation for a child molester, wouldn't it be better to say no unsupervised contact with children? That would include internet chat rooms, lurking at parks, etc. How is it actually useful to ban the person from the "internet"? It is akin to banning the ownership of paint for a person who committed vandalism-sure it sounds nice but can cause unintended consequences and is redundant.
"If the story that Oracle had planned to buy PeopleSoft in order to discontinue their products really is a myth, journalists and analysts can't take all the blame."
Why not? Oh, that's right, journalists and analysts can't be bothered to do RESEARCH and INVESTIGATION.
Let's see, if Oracle didn't say it, but someone from PeopleSoft did (and assuming PeopleSoft didn't want to be bought) what would be the reasonable conclusion? Perhaps someone is lying to scuttle the deal? I mean this has never happened before.....
If an "analyst" or "journalist" can't see this and won't investigate or research this, then they aren't an analyst or journalist. These types might as well be replaced by a website that collects PR announcements-they have the same value.
"But it's unsightly, can be costly (suitable areas for wind farms are often near the coast, where land is expensive), and is noisy."
I see. Well, it's a good thing none of these apply to coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear power plants. I mean they all look pretty, don't cost very much, and are very quiet.....NOT And that's not counting energy extraction....
"The other real question is : are you willing to pay the price of neglecting the effects of global warming?"
Well, one reason I am leary of drastic CO2 cuts is this: What exactly is the cost of global warming that we can do something about? I mean, we can calculate the costs of reducing CO2 reasonably well.
But what is the benefit? Saying the world won't warm as much isn't good enough. Saying this might not happen isn't good enough. I mean, some areas will BENEFIT from the warming. Other effects I may not care about (I don't care if someone on the coast loses their home from a hurricane). Give people reasonably good numbers and you would likely have more support. Unless those numbers indicate doing nothing is reasonable....
To put it another way: How much extra CO2 is bad? Is some okay, more worse, a lot really bad? Or is there some point at which all hell breaks loose? We don't know but that information is really important. Without it, saying we should reduce our CO2 emissions is about as meaningful as saying there isn't a problem....
Personally, I don't condemn the administration from not reducing CO2. But not funding research for the basic questions which WILL answer the question IS inexcusable.
"I actually donated money to the PTC."
Hmm, what's that phrase. Oh, a fool and his money are soon parted....
"I am all for showing sex and violence on TV but not when it is deviously smuggled inside shows billed "family entertainment"."
So, could you give some examples of these shows? Or is it that some shows that you THOUGHT were "family entertainment" had sex and violence in them. Frankly, I find very little sex (not sexual content) and violence in ANY US television, which brings me to point two-maybe your definitions of family entertainment are different than most people....
"The sad fact is that there are hardly any alternatives because almost EVERY show is doing it. There are not many intellectually stimulating shows to watch - unless you want to watch PBS all the time."
Deal with it. If every show is doing it, then by the FTC's definition of indecent, it probably isn't, because of "community standards". If most people want it in the community, how can it be indecent?
Regarding the "intellectually stimulating shows"- there never have been many of them. There never will be. Get over it. TV, for better or worse, is for entertainment, not deep thought. Be glad there is ANY "good" shows. The fact that there are so few illustrates how profitable that niche is....